After the Arrow

[Riain]

IIRC another nail was the Sparrow missile. WI the Arrow used the British Firestreak missile with the expectation of Red Top in the pipeline and perhaps a SARH version as well (not the 700lb Red Dean)?

[Archibald]

The RAF, however, has real possibilities. The EE Lightning was a fabulous aerodynamic performer, but antiquated in electronics from the start and had very short legs - the Arrow also didn't have the problems with the problems with control at high speeds (early Lightnings were very bad here) and the Arrow would be better at the job of interception than early Lightnings. I can really see lots of RAF Arrows, because of the need to have a good interceptor forces. Arrows rebuilt with better fuel-efficiency and electronics would easily enough butterfly the Tornado ADV entirely, as the Arrow would be a bit shorter-legged but much quicker to altitude and much faster at high speeds.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Secr.../dp/1857800958

I have bought this book years ago, and it is just fantastic. Tony buttler did a lot of research, and found the Arrow was reviewed by the RAF circa 1956-57 for specification F-155T (which produced some incredible paper projects)
But it lost to the aircraft on the cover of the book - the Fairey Delta III.
Which was canned by the infamous Sandys white paper of 1957...

About air-to-ground Arrows: I have mixed feelings about the idea. Born as an interceptor: bad. That big delta wing: bad.
An advantage, though, is that big weapon bay. Very low drag. It could certainly unload a large number of iron bombs, or many missiles, notably antiship. I think an Exocet should fit easily, or even a couple of them.

The way I see it, the Arrow was HUGE, with a lot of internal space, and evolution of electronics will just improve that. It had a lot of room to spare - underwings, in the bay, empty electronic bays. That pretty much ensure a long, proditable life. Look at the Skyhawk or Mirage III: small, cramped machines, yet tons of variants. Can't imagine what one could do with a roomy airframe like the CF-105...

True, but I was thinking that the RAAF might see the problems with Indonesia and its deployments in the 1960s and decide to have some of the world's best air-defense aircraft. I am having visions of the RAAF Arrows being deployed to Vietnam to prove their worth (with the fire control system for the AIM-7 Sparrow) and cleaning up against VPAF MiGs.
But I agree that the RAAF tends to not buy such large aircraft, but I think if Avro was really pushing, I think the RAAF may well go for the idea.

I like that. And I have another vision: what about Iranian IRIAF Arrows ?
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2...RIAFCF-105.jpg

This is something I have in mind for a long time: Iranian Arrows blasting Soviet Mig-25RBS out of the sky, with AIM-47 Falcon big AAMs. More on this later.

[wingman]

Originally Posted by Archibald

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Secr.../dp/1857800958

I have bought this book years ago, and it is just fantastic. Tony buttler did a lot of research, and found the Arrow was reviewed by the RAF circa 1956-57 for specification F-155T (which produced some incredible paper projects)
But it lost to the aircraft on the cover of the book - the Fairey Delta III.
Which was canned by the infamous Sandys white paper of 1957...




I like that. And I have another vision: what about Iranian IRIAF Arrows ?
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i2...RIAFCF-105.jpg

This is something I have in mind for a long time: Iranian Arrows blasting Soviet Mig-25RBS out of the sky, with AIM-47 Falcon big AAMs. More on this later.

lol!
for some reason i want that book.

you can put the pic in my ATL aeropsace thread, if you want to.

(see my sig for link.)

[Just Leo]

The Arrow weapons bay was 16 feet long and 9 feet wide. While it could carry Falcon missiles internally, Sparrows would have been mounted semi-conformally. Since Exocet is less than 16 feet long, I presume it could be carried semi-conformally as well. The Arrow II was to be equipped with two stations outboard of the undercarriage for fuel tanks, which could conceivably be used to mount sensor pods. Since the undercarriage takes up most of the wing, additional stations would be unlikely, and conventional bomb carriage would be unlikely. The argument that the aircraft was too expensive to carry bombs was also made for the F-14 Tomcat at one time.

[AdA]

The only aircraft that should have been considered as an Arrow alternative was the F106. It had been designed for he same role, it's weapon system was good for bomber interception, and it proved remarkably reliable and safe for a single engined Mach 2+ aircraft. Buying the voodo was a big mistake, and at until the final slated F4s came um in the 70s the Dart was always better than the F4 on air to air, and Dart pilots would claim it was, in it's final sixshooter form, better than any F4 of the 70s.

Regarding 2nd generation Arrows, new engines and the F14 radar/Phoenix combination would have made an ideal early 70s MLU.
The Arrow was probably capable of using the same recce systems used in RAFs SR Victor variants, and would have been a very useful platform for any high altitude high speed role

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

Feb 20, 1959 was Black Friday. The RCAF made a specification. The F-106 met none of them. The Voodoo had 2 engines. They got a deal on them. The F-101 was a clearer crew conversion from CF-100, being a two-seater. The 106 was tied to the SAGE system, and had a single seat.

No other aircraft could have filled the role of unfulfilled legend that was the Arrow.

Right there.

Diefenbaker can go fuck himself. So can his whole Cabinet. He might as well have gone around to every Canadian defense and aerospace company and set fire to them.

For all his "man of the people" talk, Diefenbaker's government put thousands of machinists, construction workers, and other blue-collar boys and girls out on the fucking street so the Canadian government could turn right around and hand their northern sovereignty over to another country.

Fuck him. I honestly don't care about "oh well it was going on before him". Then fuck them, too. But it was on his watch that the Canadian aerospace industry got gutted.

Scratch that: it didn't get gutted. It got CUT UP WITH BLOWTORCHES ON THE AVRO TARMAC.

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by AdA

The only aircraft that should have been considered as an Arrow alternative was the F106. It had been designed for he same role, it's weapon system was good for bomber interception, and it proved remarkably reliable and safe for a single engined Mach 2+ aircraft.

As proof about the reliability - Everybody knows about bird strikes and how bad they can be on aircraft and engines. What about deer strikes?? I was working the F-15 flightline at Langley AFB the day an F-106 was taking off and a whitetail dear decided to cross the runway. The F-106 was starting to rotate when he struck the deer. Some of the deer went in the engine and some along the belly. The F-106 was using afterburner (as they always did at Langley) and the story from the crew that had to clean up the runway was that some of the deer was 'roasted well done'. The F-106 pilot immediately declared an emergency and wanted to get down as soon as possible. [I was a radio tech and we had a UHF receiver in our dispatch truck to listen when birds were coming back so we could here everything on the tower and emergency freqs] Problem was he was heavy with gas and there was a restriction against dumping it near the coast. They also needed to clean up the deer from the runway. They had him circle for almost 45 minutes. They also had an F-15 that was returning from a training mission look him over while the two of them circled.

Finally the runway was clear and the F-106 could land. They had him taxi to an impound area. When the pilot climbed out of the plane he was met by the Squadron commander and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife game warden! He was given a summons to appear for 'hunting a deer out of season'! The plane did well and was back in service in a week or so I understand. word was the crew chief wanted to paint a dear on the side for the 'kill' but they wouldn't let him. Oh - The Game warden was a neighbor of the commanders and he had taken the time to call him over and have him give the summons to the pilot. That shows the faith the long term pilots had in the Dart. They were planning the prank almost as soon as the plane got hit. No one had a serious concern that once the Dart had gotten into the air that it wouldn't keep flying and land safely

[Just Leo]

The P&W J-75 was legendary for being bullet-proof. It was also very powerful, heavy, and thirsty.

Conjecture about the Orenda engine is moot. It was planned to be more powerful, but never achieved 60% power in testing. The next stage of blade testing would have been accomplished shortly after the end. What the final output would be, or it's fuel consumption figures or reliability and durability would have been is wholly guesswork. It's possible that other aircraft would have been up-graded to Orenda engines, or not.

[Ming777]

Originally Posted by Archibald

Totally agree. Most of the first Mach 2 machines had very, very long careers spanning up to the 2000s. The Drakken lived long enough to meet the Grippen.
The Mirage IV-A makes for an interesting comparison. Flown June 1959, upgraded in the 80's to the IV-P standard. Last withdrawn: 2005, because it was rather irreplaceable in its niche - long range reconnaissance.
The way I see it, I can see the Arrow persisting into the 2000s for peculiar missions like reconnaissance or SEAD.

One interesting thing to note: If the Arrows were produced, France was interesting in buying the PS.13 Iroquois Engines for the Mirage IVs.

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The Arrow weapons bay was 16 feet long and 9 feet wide. While it could carry Falcon missiles internally, Sparrows would have been mounted semi-conformally. Since Exocet is less than 16 feet long, I presume it could be carried semi-conformally as well. The Arrow II was to be equipped with two stations outboard of the undercarriage for fuel tanks, which could conceivably be used to mount sensor pods. Since the undercarriage takes up most of the wing, additional stations would be unlikely, and conventional bomb carriage would be unlikely. The argument that the aircraft was too expensive to carry bombs was also made for the F-14 Tomcat at one time.

Good points. My idea of a Arrow fitted with the AWG-9 and AIM-54 caught partly because of that - the AIM-47 is 13 feet long and 33 inches in wingspan, so one could conceivably carry three of them in the Arrow's weapons' bay. (I'm not sure how deep it is, but one much be able to stack them here, allowing for six to be carried, if the weapons bay is deep enough.) The AIM-54 Phoenix, which the AIM-47 is derived from, is three inches larger across in Wingspan and a tighter fit as a result. With the fuel tanks being where they are, the idea of carrying a station for a lightweight AAM (Sidewinder or Red Top) as well as a wingtip station, allowing a fully-armed Arrow to be carrying six AIM-47s or AIM-54s and four AIM-9s. One could conceivably carry addition weapons in recesses under the tail, behind the weapons bay.

The idea of carrying Exocets or Harpoons in the bay is also interesting, and possible - both are less than sixteen feet long, but the Exocet is 3 ft 7 in in wingspan and thus only two could be carried by the Arrow in the weapons bay, though again if outside hardpoints can be set up one could add a couple more. The design of the landing gear is a major impediment to the carrying of additional weapons, as others have pointed out.

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by Ming777

One interesting thing to note: If the Arrows were produced, France was interesting in buying the PS.13 Iroquois Engines for the Mirage IVs.

Consider the PS.13 made more 25% power on full military thrust than the Atar did with the afterburners on, that would probably have been a help to the Mirage IV's performance, too.

[Just Leo]

The Arrow weapons module would carry 3 AIM-54 semi-conformally. There is insufficient depth for internal storage or additional weapons. The line outlining the weapons module in profile defines the dimensions of the module.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by TheMann

The design of the landing gear is a major impediment to the carrying of additional weapons, as others have pointed out.

Over wing hardpoints/pylons, like were previously used on the Lightning to mount ferry tanks, just sort of bypass the problem all together (as would wingtip stations) although you probably couldn't cary much on one, it could easily manage something like a sidewinder or AIM-4 Falcon on each station, or two sidewinders on a split rail.

[Ming777]

Considering the original aircraft were all preproduction aircraft, perhaps some redesigns could have been made before full production occurred.

[Just Leo]

I was just thinking about Mirage IVC ADV in gold plate. I don't know where the missiles would go.

In retrospect, I fiddled with Arrow and TSR2, and found the TSR2 undercarriage to be a good fit on the Arrow, with the deletion of the weapons bay, allowing the usual underwing stores stations, which would be less limiting in weapons size and shape, but with a performance penalty.

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by Just Leo

The Arrow weapons module would carry 3 AIM-54 semi-conformally. There is insufficient depth for internal storage or additional weapons. The line outlining the weapons module in profile defines the dimensions of the module.

Perhaps a bulged weapons bay, or maybe folding fins on the AIM-54s?

[LostCosmonaut]

I could see a folding fin version of the Phoenix being developed, since I'm pretty sure that the AIM-47 or -26 had a folding fin version developed, and both those missiles are from the same developmental family as the Phoenix.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by wingman

lol!
for some reason i want that book.

you can put the pic in my ATL aeropsace thread, if you want to.

(see my sig for link.)

I'm going to my bookshelf to see which Iranian Aircraft in Combat book that's been made from! Because as a man, I MUST!!!!

[Archibald]

Originally Posted by TheMann

Consider the PS.13 made more 25% power on full military thrust than the Atar did with the afterburners on, that would probably have been a help to the Mirage IV's performance, too.

The "Iroquois Mirage" was a somewhat different Mirage IV - the Mirage IVB, not the Mirage IVA.

http://www.google.fr/#hl=fr&sclient=...w=1024&bih=624

The Mirage IVB was an upscaled variant, twice as big and heavy, twice the range. Indeed the Mirage IVA, as build, was severely limited by the Atar. The range was too small to reach Moscow, hence the buyout of KC-135 by France.

Kind of jump from F-105 to B-58.

The Mirage IVB could have made it to Moscow without the tankers, and as such was seriously considered by the French Air Force.

The Mirage IV-01 that flew - with the Atars - in June 1959 was considered a mere subscale prototype of the IVB. Unfortunately, in De Gaulle vision, the nuclear bomber was to be 100% french - no foreign engines.
(yes, I know, the KC-135 are foreign hardware - but at least a Mirage could fly without the tankers, even if that meant a suicide mission to Moscow... that was the logic...)
So they went for the Atar Mirage IVA, even if that meant lower performance.
The Iroquois was only one of many engines considered for the IVB - the Olympus, Gyron, RB-142 and the J-75 were also on the short list, together with a 4*Atar Mirage, and a "Super atar" engine. But SNECMA couldn't do it...

http://www.mirage4p.com/slides/Historique/p12.html

I'm going to my bookshelf to see which Iranian Aircraft in Combat book that's been made from! Because as a man, I MUST!!!!

Iranian F-14A in combat. Osprey, Farzad and Bishop.

Iranian CF-105 anybody ?

[Just Leo]

Originally Posted by TheMann

Perhaps a bulged weapons bay, or maybe folding fins on the AIM-54s?

I did draw one Arrow with a bulged belly, for the purpose of a gun installation, along the lines of the Lightning. It doesn't look very nice. It takes a very big airplane to carry very big missiles internally.




The Mirage IVB was cancelled as being too expensive. Instead, doctrine was to operate two a/c, one with buddy refuel gear to gas up the bomber. You may opine that it's cheaper to build one expensive aircraft that could operate alone, and you'd be right, but you didn't make the decision. Who pays the piper plays the tune.